I think by far the more crucial issue is the ability of the media to define the standards. To take a 'shrug it off' approach simply allows them to push further and further as they undoubtedly will in the pursuit of the lowest common denominator.
Posted on 11/19/2004 4:42:28 AM PST by TGOMedia
When Janet Jackson flopped out of her top, the popular question asked by many of my fellow conservatives – to anyone who refused to believe that a 40-year-old woman’s exposed tit meant the end of civilization – was, What would you say to your child if he asked about the Awful Incident? This seemed to suggest that because a few parents would stumble over the question, it was out of reach for parents everywhere. It was the first time in a very long time I’d seen the Republican party talk down to the same people it claimed to implicitly trust.
As it happened, my son (about to turn 10 at the time) asked me about Janet Jackson two days after it happened, on the way to school. He wanted to know 1) if I’d seen the Awful Incident, and 2) what I thought about it. “I saw it after the fact. She has a new album coming out soon, and she thought that if she did something like that, more people would be interested in her again, and she’d sell more CDs. I think it’s pitiful when people think they have to take their clothes off to get attention.” He agreed, and that was the end. No chaos, no endless hours of debate, no great moral struggle. In those 15 seconds I conveyed to my son the greater ethical point without feeling the desire to write the FCC and demand it drum CBS out of broadcasting.
This is on my mind because ABC is in hot water over a skit it aired as Monday Night Football was going on the air last Monday. The scene: some blonde actress from the show Desperate Housewives is in the Philadelphia Eagles locker room, combing her wet hair, wearing only a large white towel. She looks up and smiles; there stands Terrell Owens, Eagles wide receiver (and professional football’s premier jackass). There follows some “amusing” conversation, at which point the actress opens her towel and drops it to the floor; here the viewer is treated to approximately one second of her bare back. Owens mutters something about how his team is now going to have to win the game without him, and the woman jumps into his arms. Cut to two other actresses from the same show (one of whom I recognized as Teri Hatcher) sitting on a couch at home, viewing the locker room exchange on their television. More “witty” banter between those two; on with the show. No nudity was seen, other than the second of back skin.
What resulted was light-duty chaos, because not enough of my fellow Republicans are capable of drawing the intellectual distinction between two square feet of bare back skin, shown for one second, and actual penetration.
It has since been pointed out that, while this latest Awful Incident aired at 9:00pm on the East coast (when a large number of younger children should already be in bed), those in Los Angeles were able to take offense (but would they?) at 6:00pm, when everyone is awake. On Mondays, ABC’s Los Angeles affiliate (ABC 7) airs The View at 10:00am. Three house of soap operas begin at noon. Oprah Winfrey’s dopey show – currently being “investigated” by the FCC for discussing “tossed salad” on the air (e-mail me if you don’t know the reference) – airs in the “culturally superior” Los Angeles at 3:00pm. A combination of local and national news can be seen until 6:00pm, when ABC 7 succumbs to Monday Night Football’s pure, unadulterated evil. Surely nothing between 10:00am and 6:00pm would cause any child, especially those not old enough to go to school, to offer a sideways glance.
Now let me make one thing clear before ethically upright conservatives start sharpening their protest letter pencils: Yes, there is a moral divide in America, and oftentimes it is only dogged conservatives standing between innocent bystanders and pockets of chaos. Here and there, I am one of the dogged. But the conservative movement has lost the ability to roll its eyes, recognize when something is merely silly, and leave well enough alone. Because of this, it takes great delight in turning every single molehill into a mountain, just before deciding it’s acceptable to figuratively die on every one of them. By turning every annoyance into a slippery slope, conservatives run the risk of becoming the movement that cried Wolf!, meaning that people may not take it as seriously as before when it comes time to fight the battles that really matter.
Welcome to FR.
funny how you just couldn't explain that taking off one's clothes in public is just plain wrong, instead of rationalizing the behavior for him. now he knows how to get attention - good job.
I don't get what the big deal is. Desperate Housewives is a trash show, as with most of what's on broadcast.
Yes, because he was having a tremendous anount of trouble getting attention before.
I was more bothered by the bad acting and humorless script than I was the "intent" of the spot ...
I think by far the more crucial issue is the ability of the media to define the standards. To take a 'shrug it off' approach simply allows them to push further and further as they undoubtedly will in the pursuit of the lowest common denominator.
I didn't see it so I'll take your word for it. They should make a good tasteless commercial if they're going to make one *lol*
Society still can't handle the interracial aspect of this flirting episode. Otherwise, you would have heard nothing of this poor attempt at show promotion.
I am amazed that the same ABC that wouldn't show "Saving Private Ryan" because they were terrified of the Christian Taliban, found no problem in putting nekkid wimmen in prime time and then whining about how we just don't understand....
I used the same reasoning with my kids when they were young enough to know the difference; and I still use it with my grandson at race meetings where an abundance of Hooter Girl types saunter about. In fact, our family joke is "It's too bad they don't pay those girls enough to buy clothes that fit them!"
maybe now if somebody on the street asks him to stip for money he'll think that Janet Jackson did it and it wasn't wrong.
A society without ethics has no standards. a society without standards has no control. if there is no standards there is no wrong behavior. We inculcate our children with the idea that some things are wrong. just plain wrong. otherwise how are they to know? everything just becomes a matter of taste.
"But the conservative movement has lost the ability to roll its eyes, recognize when something is merely silly, and leave well enough alone."
I don't believe this is a conservative ranting point at all. Between "Saving Private Ryan," wihch had already been aired four times, the football incident and a few others, I think there is an effort through staged outrage to get the FCC to actually define what is and is not acceptable. The FCC has made some silly calls of late notably the "F as a verb vs. adjective" ruling.
I think this is mostly staged by those who want some sort of coherency from the FCC.
I give my kids straight answers, but they also need to know how we should conduct ourselves. I watch football because I like football and I do not watch "desperate Housewives" because I know what it is. The fact that ABC or CBS ambushes its viewers is what is garbage. The halftime show sucked before the tit came out, my kids weren't watching, but I understand how people would object. What if someone read from the book of Psalms for two minutes before the game? Would there be objections from the other side? What if someone came on and preached a twenty minute sermon at halftime?
It doesn't take much of an intellect to rationalize why anything done is ok.I could do it too, I would just be lying to myself.
But not everyone agrees with you that someone taking their clothes off is all that wrong really. Sad, yes. Very very wrong, no.
Anyone who reads the column and believes "everything is being condoned" should pay much closser attention to the last paragraph. Not everything is acceptable; but not everything is patently unacceptable.
The issue, to me, is with television broadcasters, who are entrusted with tle broadcasting franchise that belongs to the people. Entrusted with maintining their broasdcast content within local norms, that they would presume to give us, as parents, so many "teaching moments".
That scene would have earned a movie a PG-13 rating for "adult content" or "adult situations".
Was there a PG-13 warning at the beginning of the show? How, precisely is this stupid V-Chip stuff supposed to work if the broadcasters don't uphold their part of the bargain?
What a load.
I think alot of people are sick of being flashed. There is no difference in what Janet did and the 'flasher in a raincoat' and frankly I'm tired of being drawn into a program like the Superbowl only to have my home and children sexually assulted by exhibitionists.
Good question - I haven't paid attention to a show's rating since they began using that system years ago. As for the V-chip, someone else will have to answer that ... I don't know for sure, but I am assuming that it went out with disco. If someone has one, please let us know ...
well our society, not me personally, has determined that this is wroong a long time ago. and if a 40 year old is ok to strip in public, why not an 8 year old?
and if it is ok to strip, then why not touching? caressing? stimulating? Copulating? Voluntary/involuntary?
if we cede our behavioral ethics - we are saying that they no longer matter. that makes it harder to try to put the brakes on. where do we stop?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.